Debate in the social sciences

The standpoint that positivism (especially logical positivism) demanded from science was questioned by scientists wanting to investigate the social world. Many social scientists were particularly keen to rid themselves of the stricter forms of positivism. Social order, patterns of social relationships and modes of thinking did not fit with the belief that there was only one absolute logic and one form of approach to rational understanding (i.e. truth). The connection between human reasoning and the procedures of positivistic science therefore came to be a subject for debate. In opposition to this position called absolutism, it was proposed that there were many logics. This counter-position, known as relativism, found expression in such areas as linguistic semantics and psychology. For example, Piaget and Inhelder (1955) argued that the variety and complexity of natural language and behaviour implied that there was no single logic, but that there might be a range of acquired rules, encoded in the brain, that people follow. Hence, what could be considered rational, logical and even the truth are matters for debate.

Logic became seen as normative: that standards of behaviour follow cultural conventions rather than ideal standards of rationality established by formal logic (Turner, 1984). In economics, for example, models and theories were developed to describe real life decision-making (Simon, 1957). Examples and illustrations were devised and case studies undertaken to show how real decision-making deviates from rational models: what actually happened compared with what ought to have happened in an ideal situation. The aim was to improve decision-making by identifying key variables that all effective decisions needed. In this way some theorists, such as Cohen (1986), maintain the usefulness of normative logic because it provides what they consider to be an ideal standard for comparison.

Not all social scientists, however, aimed to produce comparisons of everyday logic with that of science. The anthropologist Edward Evans‑Pritchard (1902-1973), for example, undertook a study of the Azande people from southern Sudan (1937). His interest was with the mental life of what were then commonly called ''primitives''. Contemporary views held the position that tribal peoples tended to have a primitive mentality: they were intellectual inferiors to Europeans. Comparing Western scientific logic with the superstitions and myths of tribal people was the norm for research. Evans‑Pritchard's fieldwork refuted this comparison and belief; it demolished the divide between ''us'' and ''them ''.

Evans-Pritchard did this by focusing on the mythical beliefs and practices of the Azande. The defining feature for Azande life was the pervasive belief in witchcraft and sorcery. For example, no Azande would venture out on a journey or similar undertaking without first consulting an oracle. The purpose was to see if any misfortune would be likely to befall them on a journey, or to see if anyone had bewitched them. To European science, this kind of belief was not a religion or the basis of logical thought; it was a measure of the primitiveness of tribal societies. Evans-Pritchard opposed this view. He showed that the metaphysical ideas of any society could be treated with the same seriousness as those of any of the great world religions. Added to this he showed that the logic of such beliefs was situational, being dependent upon the cultural conventions or ways of viewing the world of particular groups.

Hence Western science, according to Evans-Pritchard, is just one way of understanding the world and although successful in terms of technology it is not the only or dominant form of understanding to be found in human cultures. If we want to understand such beliefs as Azande magic, we need to understand the use and nature of them as experienced by the Azande in their everyday lives. Trying to compare and measure notions about intellectual superiority were, according to Evans‑Pritchard, inappropriate due to the fact that Western science and Azande witchcraft are incomparable: they are two different ways of thinking about the world and of organizing daily activities.

Therefore, in terms of our debate, we can identify two key points. The first is that Evans-Pritchard argued that non-literate peoples' apparent irrational (illogical) beliefs formed a coherent and logical system of ideas. The second point is the approach Evans-Pritchard took to understanding the logic of Azande belief and practices. His approach was informed by science. It was based on close observation, questioning and inquiry into what was going on in Azande culture, leading him, and us, to a more balanced, unprejudiced and even objective view of such beliefs. Hence, the procedures of science can help us understand science itself, as well as non-scientific based phenomena, and what could be considered logical.

Tasks